On whether to redshirt...

[Anonymous]

Don't hold back if the only issue is social immaturity. If bright, your DC will spend ES bored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't hold back if the only issue is social immaturity. If bright, your DC will spend ES bored.

That's the reason everyone told us to hold back our 5 year old. Everyone said it's the only reason, not academic immaturity or size/physical reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone on here says, "you know your kid!" or "if he's ready, send him!"

DS (september birthday) is totally ready for Kindergarten, no question in my mind. But, "in real life" the advice I get is, he may be fine in kindergarten but the real issues pop up later when everyone else is
- bigger
- going through puberty
- driving
- etc.

I hear smaller and younger kids have trouble socially, etc.

Just a vent I guess... I just don't think it's as cut and dry as saying, "if he's ready now, send him". And yes, I know my kid at age 4, but not what he'll be like at 11...

The empirical evidence on this suggests that your concern is actual kind of backwards. There's mixed evidence about redshirting's short term value but studies that have examined the effect of redshirting by the time kids have become teenagers show that it is, on average, counterproductive. Kids have greater social problems and are more likely to get into trouble, possibly from boredom.

[Anonymous]

We started our September boy on time and he started off seeming very young, but he was eager to keep up, and now, at the end of elementary, he is doing great in all respects.

A lot of parents decide to redshirt to make things easier for their kids. We decided not to for a similar reason -- we wanted him to have the experience of having to work hard. So rather than having some sort of innate confidence, he has the experience of working to master something (waiting for his turn to talk, getting his letters to point the right direction, whatever) that wasn't easy for him.

As the Experian ad says, "Everything you are now good at, you were once very bad at." I wouldn't send a kid who was going to be struggling for years. But having him not start at the top of the heap, instead getting there through conscious effort is, for him/us, better than the "gift of time" some people like to talk about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
A lot of parents decide to redshirt to make things easier for their kids. We decided not to for a similar reason -- we wanted him to have the experience of having to work hard. So rather than having some sort of innate confidence, he has the experience of working to master something (waiting for his turn to talk, getting his letters to point the right direction, whatever) that wasn't easy for him.

This is one reason we didn't redshirt. But my child is also confident, unlikely to internalize others opinions as truth. A more timid child might have other issues to consider.

[Anonymous]

There's mixed evidence about redshirting's short term value but studies that have examined the effect of redshirting by the time kids have become teenagers show that it is, on average, counterproductive. Kids have greater social problems and are more likely to get into trouble, possibly from boredom.

You start off by saying there is "mixed evidence" and then you deny it.

As a teacher, I can tell you that there is such a thing as "immaturity"........and the kids who have it benefit greatly from another year. I have seen this too many times. Among friends kids, as well. One of my friends who chose not to redshirt and sent a very young girl, later said "Why didn't somebody tell me about high school when I made that decision" The child was great academically--until high school when the social immaturity outweighed the other.

FWIW, I think I speak objectively as I did not redshirt my two. One was Winter and one was Early Spring.

Once more, it depends on the kid. But, no, they do not have greater social problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There's mixed evidence about redshirting's short term value but studies that have examined the effect of redshirting by the time kids have become teenagers show that it is, on average, counterproductive. Kids have greater social problems and are more likely to get into trouble, possibly from boredom.

You start off by saying there is "mixed evidence" and then you deny it.

As a teacher, I can tell you that there is such a thing as "immaturity"........and the kids who have it benefit greatly from another year. I have seen this too many times. Among friends kids, as well. One of my friends who chose not to redshirt and sent a very young girl, later said "Why didn't somebody tell me about high school when I made that decision" The child was great academically--until high school when the social immaturity outweighed the other.

FWIW, I think I speak objectively as I did not redshirt my two. One was Winter and one was Early Spring.

Once more, it depends on the kid. But, no, they do not have greater social problems.

Of course you didn't redshirt a child with a winter or early spring birthday. I don't know what that has to do with objectivity.

You don't say what grade(s) you teach. Yes, some kids are immature, but one year won't magically change that, they'll just be a different age and immature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There's mixed evidence about redshirting's short term value but studies that have examined the effect of redshirting by the time kids have become teenagers show that it is, on average, counterproductive. Kids have greater social problems and are more likely to get into trouble, possibly from boredom.

You start off by saying there is "mixed evidence" and then you deny it.

As a teacher, I can tell you that there is such a thing as "immaturity"........and the kids who have it benefit greatly from another year. I have seen this too many times. Among friends kids, as well. One of my friends who chose not to redshirt and sent a very young girl, later said "Why didn't somebody tell me about high school when I made that decision" The child was great academically--until high school when the social immaturity outweighed the other.

FWIW, I think I speak objectively as I did not redshirt my two. One was Winter and one was Early Spring.

Once more, it depends on the kid. But, no, they do not have greater social problems.

No, I didn't say there is mixed evidence and then deny it. I said the evidence is mixed for short term benefit and tends to suggest that it is negative over the long term.

[Anonymous]

Yes, some kids are immature, but one year won't magically change that, they'll just be a different age and immature.

The child will have matured by 12 months in a year, which can make a big difference. Kids grow and develop a lot in a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, some kids are immature, but one year won't magically change that, they'll just be a different age and immature.

The child will have matured by 12 months in a year, which can make a big difference. Kids grow and develop a lot in a year.

They will be with kids over a year younger and less mature, so you are judging it based off that. They don't get to be with kids their own age and then mature. They will always be a year or so behind as that is the position the adult put them in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone on here says, "you know your kid!" or "if he's ready, send him!"

DS (september birthday) is totally ready for Kindergarten, no question in my mind. But, "in real life" the advice I get is, he may be fine in kindergarten but the real issues pop up later when everyone else is
- bigger
- going through puberty
- driving
- etc.

I hear smaller and younger kids have trouble socially, etc.

Just a vent I guess... I just don't think it's as cut and dry as saying, "if he's ready now, send him". And yes, I know my kid at age 4, but not what he'll be like at 11...

The empirical evidence on this suggests that your concern is actual kind of backwards. There's mixed evidence about redshirting's short term value but studies that have examined the effect of redshirting by the time kids have become teenagers show that it is, on average, counterproductive. Kids have greater social problems and are more likely to get into trouble, possibly from boredom.

Sigh. No. The research is not nearly this cut and dry. You shouldn't be summarizing it so broadly as it is not nearly this conclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There's mixed evidence about redshirting's short term value but studies that have examined the effect of redshirting by the time kids have become teenagers show that it is, on average, counterproductive. Kids have greater social problems and are more likely to get into trouble, possibly from boredom.

You start off by saying there is "mixed evidence" and then you deny it.

As a teacher, I can tell you that there is such a thing as "immaturity"........and the kids who have it benefit greatly from another year. I have seen this too many times. Among friends kids, as well. One of my friends who chose not to redshirt and sent a very young girl, later said "Why didn't somebody tell me about high school when I made that decision" The child was great academically--until high school when the social immaturity outweighed the other.

FWIW, I think I speak objectively as I did not redshirt my two. One was Winter and one was Early Spring.

Once more, it depends on the kid. But, no, they do not have greater social problems.

No, I didn't say there is mixed evidence and then deny it. I said the evidence is mixed for short term benefit and tends to suggest that it is negative over the long term.

Not really. And I have read and kept up with this field for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There's mixed evidence about redshirting's short term value but studies that have examined the effect of redshirting by the time kids have become teenagers show that it is, on average, counterproductive. Kids have greater social problems and are more likely to get into trouble, possibly from boredom.

You start off by saying there is "mixed evidence" and then you deny it.

As a teacher, I can tell you that there is such a thing as "immaturity"........and the kids who have it benefit greatly from another year. I have seen this too many times. Among friends kids, as well. One of my friends who chose not to redshirt and sent a very young girl, later said "Why didn't somebody tell me about high school when I made that decision" The child was great academically--until high school when the social immaturity outweighed the other.

FWIW, I think I speak objectively as I did not redshirt my two. One was Winter and one was Early Spring.

Once more, it depends on the kid. But, no, they do not have greater social problems.

No, I didn't say there is mixed evidence and then deny it. I said the evidence is mixed for short term benefit and tends to suggest that it is negative over the long term.

Not really. And I have read and kept up with this field for years.

I love that y'all are saying that a claim that some evidence is mixed and other evidence tends to support a view are categorical and extreme statements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There's mixed evidence about redshirting's short term value but studies that have examined the effect of redshirting by the time kids have become teenagers show that it is, on average, counterproductive. Kids have greater social problems and are more likely to get into trouble, possibly from boredom.

You start off by saying there is "mixed evidence" and then you deny it.

As a teacher, I can tell you that there is such a thing as "immaturity"........and the kids who have it benefit greatly from another year. I have seen this too many times. Among friends kids, as well. One of my friends who chose not to redshirt and sent a very young girl, later said "Why didn't somebody tell me about high school when I made that decision" The child was great academically--until high school when the social immaturity outweighed the other.

FWIW, I think I speak objectively as I did not redshirt my two. One was Winter and one was Early Spring.

Once more, it depends on the kid. But, no, they do not have greater social problems.

No, I didn't say there is mixed evidence and then deny it. I said the evidence is mixed for short term benefit and tends to suggest that it is negative over the long term.

Not really. And I have read and kept up with this field for years.

I love that y'all are saying that a claim that some evidence is mixed and other evidence tends to support a view are categorical and extreme statements.

Nobody said anything about extreme. But what PP wrote about the supposed negative trend of the evidence is inaccurate, and the even more broad statement in the original post about it being counterproductive is even more so. It's significantly overstating the research.

You should be able to make your points without exaggerating the research.

[Anonymous]

You don't say what grade(s) you teach. Yes, some kids are immature, but one year won't magically change that, they'll just be a different age and immature.

No. A year makes a big difference. Think about it. A September kid who waits a year is just a month older than an October kid starting on time.

I have no objection to a Sept kid starting if the parents think he is ready, but please don't let these anti-redshirt people convince you otherwise. If you suspect your child would benefit from another year, you are probably right.